However, The Washington Post, after affirming the veracity of the files which the Commission sent them, ran a front-page story on March 24, 1971.

“The complete collection of political documents ripped off from the F.B.I. office in Media, Pa., March 8, 1971” was published for the first time as the March, 1972 issue of WIN Magazine, a journal associated with the War Resisters League. The documents revealed the COINTELPRO operation,[1] and led to the Church Committee and the cessation of this operation by the FBI.

Were the media organizations charged with treason in this case? No. None of the media reporting this information was held accountable for the leak.

Why the double standard? Is it more about the leaks of the Democratic’s emails and the disclosure of the dirty dealings with the DNC that put Assange in the hot seat? Had the Washington Times published Snowdon’s stolen documents would there be the same condemnation? Would the Times’ reporters have to seek asylum in another country? Again, No.

So why the double standard? There are many instances where the media has leaked incriminating evidence about government misuse of power and the media outlets were considered doing their job, not treason as is the case with Assange. (the treason charge is laughable considering he’s not an American citizen.) Why is there such a double standard in Assange’s case?

So Weary what did Q say about this theory of yours, you aren’t going off the reservation with your own conspiracy theory are you? I mean this FBI spying on antiwar activist in 1971 is so closely linked to Assange that anything is possible…. anyway thanks for the laugh Weary. It seems your plan is working, not one mention of Trump receiving the Wikileaks stolen emails documents from mother Russia.

The double standard is holding Assange accountable, but not holding the Times and WIN to the same standards. Assange received stolen material just as the Times did. Assange published the material, just as the Times did. Assange is wanted for some unspecified crime, but the Times isn’t.

The double standard I speak of is the media leaking confidential information without repercussions, and Assange leaking information and being charged with crimes against the U.S. They are both journalists, but only one is being persecuted. The same thing happened decades earlier. Confidential information was disseminated to the public and the journalists responsible were “just doing their job”. Why is Assange being held to a different standard?

“WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service. It has encouraged its followers to find jobs at CIA in order to obtain intelligence. It directed Chelsea Manning in her theft of specific secret information. And it overwhelmingly focuses on the United States, while seeking support from anti-democratic countries and organizations.

It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is – a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia. In January of this year, our Intelligence Community determined that Russian military intelligence—the GRU—had used WikiLeaks to release data of US victims that the GRU had obtained through cyber operations against the Democratic National Committee. And the report also found that Russia’s primary propaganda outlet, RT, has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks.”
CIA Director Pompeo, 4/13/17

Not to simplify Pompeo’s remarks, but I kept hearing, “Assange and..”, “Assange and…”. Assange didn’t hack anything. He was provided information gained the same way other information is gained by the established media. You may think established journalists don’t collude with whistle-blowers or even criminals, but they do collude to get information. I haven’t heard anyone say Assange actually hacked, or stole information himself. He is the recipient of other people’s actions.

I just don’t see the case against Assange. It doesn’t appear to have been spelled out to me. I see a journalist willing to expose criminal behavior. His flaw is to also expose the good with the bad, but that is his business model. He exposes the information in total. He doesn’t cherry pick information from what he receives. He exposes it all.
Is this his bad? When his contemporaries will use the good to hide the bad, what choice is left.

How did the people find out about the DNC’s war against Bernard Sanders?

That was an illegal activity exposed by a second party and published by a third. That’s it.

Was it a coincidence this information was published by a foreign entity, or was it a matter of necessity? I think that’s a valid question.

More questions? Are journalists guilty of a crime if they receive classified info from an informant? What if they publish/pass on classified info? what about a foreign journalist releasing US classified info?

I plead him not guilty in each scenario.

Now, if he or someone is paying the first party to acquire classified info by stealing/intercepting etc, that would be a crime.

This Swedish rape thing was inter gov’t collusion to get Assange off the street and in gov’t hands. His relations with women don’t suggest he is a middle aged rapist.

“Assange is clearly a media entity, albeit an unorthodox one… so the thief, the person who hands it to WikiLeaks, is the criminal. Not WikiLeaks.”

- Judge Andrew Napolitano

The idea of prosecuting Assange has been floating around since 2010, when WikiLeaks shared a massive trove of U.S. secrets leaked by Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning, then known as Bradley Manning. But to date, Assange has not been charged with any crime related to his website.

The FBI has already mounted an investigation aimed at finding the mole who divulged the material or any external hacker who retrieved it from CIA servers.

Does this make any sense? This article says it will find the mole. However, when they find the mole (Manning) they provide him with expensive cosmetic medical procedures and medicines while in prison and then pardon him! I don’t get it!

Let’s look at this from another point of view. Let’s imagine Manning was actually doing a Papadopoulos on Assange. The U.S. Military gets Manning to set up Assange by giving him stolen documents. In exchange, Manning’s dream of becoming a woman becomes a reality after a short term in a prison.

Manning is promised a wig and some pills and a pardon if he’ll take the fall for giving Assange the information. From then on the focus is entirely on Assange and Wikileaks. No questions asked, Assange is a traitor and needs to be disappeared.

Doesn’t that sound like what they did to G. Papadopoulos, except for the quid pro quo, of course.

Randy Credico: Julian Assange, I just wanted to mention something that happened to me yesterday. A woman named Laura Krause called me last night. She is the sister of Allison Krause, one of the four students who were killed at Kent State on May 4, 1970, by the National Guard. She expressed her gratitude to WikiLeaks for finding and preserving some very important documents relating to that tragic event.

Julian Assange: Interestingly, we didn’t intend to specifically publish Kent State documents. It was part of our large archive of cable documents from the 1970s called “The Kissinger Cables.” Often when you take the internal communications of the State Department or another powerful organization, it tends to touch on nearly everything. And the public’s ability to spot relevant connections in your material often greatly outstrips your own.

I am always extremely irritated with journalists who sit upon hordes of historical treasure detailing how our institutions actually behave. The public’s ability to take this information and connect it to their own personal histories, using it in litigation and political campaigns, is actually much greater than the rather narrow character of any particular journalist or editor, including myself.

And it overwhelmingly focuses on the United States, while seeking support from anti-democratic countries and organizations.

Has anyone considered the possibility our government is simply inadequate and fails to protect itself?

Perhaps Wikileaks focuses on the U.S. because it can. And since anti-democratic countries and organizations are contributing to Wikileaks, perhaps we can’t protect ourselves from them either. Perhaps our data security is a sham used to sell virus software to the masses! How would we know otherwise?

To focus on Wikileaks (the messenger) is like playing whack-a-mole. Especially when we reward the real traitors with $ex change operations and pardons.

Perhaps the government is taking on more than it can handle and the leaks are a natural by-product of that burden. Perhaps the nature and scope of information security should be examined instead of concentrating on the person exposing these flaws.